m:::i?''^^^^ss^ 



017 897 833 



HOLLINGER 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS 



SPEECH 



HON. JAMES KNOX, OF ILLINOIS, 




IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 19, 1854. 



The House beino: in the Committee of the Whole 
on the state of the Union — 

Mr. KNOX said: 

Mr. Chairm.\n: On taking my seat in this Hall, 
I determined not to trespass on the time of Con- 
gress and the country unless I believed that some 
suggestion from me might aid in our deliberations. 
It is possible, ay, it is probable,* that this rule 
would now seal my lips. Flowever that may be, 
sir, nearly six months have elapsed since the open- 
ing of our session, and now for the first time I find 
myself upon tlws floor, under circumstances the 
most extraordinary — under a state of things not 
dreamed of when, in the canvass, I mingled with 
those v.'ho sent me here, and most unlocked for 
when, at yonder desk, I took the solemn oath to 
support the Constitution of the United States. 

Representing a district bounded on the west by 
the Mississippi, and divided by the Illinois, and 
forming a portion of a State which, though far 
inland, is nearly surrounded by navigable waters, 
connecting it with the internal trade of the con- 
tinent and the foreign commerce of the world, my 
constituents may have expected that on some suit- 
able occasion I would raise my feeble voice in be- 
half of the wise policy of the Government in giving 
of its means to improve the navigation of those 
inland seas and noble rivers, which a bountiful 
Piovidence designed for useful purposes. Resid- 
ing, too, in a district extending a hundred miles 
north and south, right across the pathway cf the 
ever increasing commerce and emigration Irom 
and through the great cities and populous States 
of the North to the now ocean bounded West, 
and having in it several railroads projected and in 
process of construction, each claimed to be upon 
the best route between the Atlantic and the Pacific, 
those whom I am honored in representing may 
have supposed it possible that by something more 
than an affirmative vote, I would aid in the exten- 
sion of these roads, and especially in laying the 
foundation of a great national highway, commenc- 
ing at some point on the Missouri, to which these 
and other roads converge, and stretching its iron 
track far westward to the magic city of San Fran- 
cisco. 

Having seen and experienced something (if the 
hardships and privations of frontier life, and 
watched with deep interest the slow and toilsome 
growth of the early settler, from the houseless, 



j homeless pioneer, into the substantial farmer in 
• comfort and happiness, I was favorably impressed 
I with the idea of throwing open to the less fortunate 
' classes a portion of our broad domain, spread out 
in almost boundless extent by a beneficent Creator 
for the uses of man. As the humble Representative 
of a free people, almost equal in number to those 
who speak so ably through the gentlemen from 
Delaware and Florida here, and whose interests 
are so fully guarded by four honorable Senators 
at the other end of the Capitol, 1 might, perhaps, 
without overstepping the bounds of modesty, have 
claimed a passing remark upon any one of the 
topics to which I have referred, or any one of the 
minor questions discussed in the last election. Cer- 
tain it is, I did not expect, my constituents did not 
expect, that my first remarks upon this floor could, 
by any possibility, be upon the subject of slavery. 
Nay, more, sir, if in any one of the speeches 
which I attempted during the canvass, running 
through several weeks, and covering eleven large 
counties, I had intimated that the repeal of the 
Missouri compromise was to be the great question 
before this Congress, the statement would have 
been received with astonishment. If in any one 
of those speeches, I had had the hardihood and 
the folly to assert, that if elected, I would advocate 
the repeal of that time-honored compromise be- 
tween the South and the North, my eloquent com- 
petitor, not I, would have been here to tell the 
tale of that contest. Yes, sir, if avoiding that 
simple, old fashioned word " repeal," and with 
those magic words " self-government," " liber- 
ty," the " Constitution" upon my lips, worda 
which do, and I trust ever will find a way to the 
American heart, I had, in connection with this 
subject, artfully insinuattd those newly Invented 
legislative terms of this " progressive age," " su- 
perseded," "inconsistent with," "inoperative and 
void," that competitor might have told you that 
I had succeeded beyo^id his expectations in ma- 
king the " slowest (political) race" on record. 

I submit to other gentlemen on this floor whether, 
under similar circumstances, and with a likr 
avowal of purpose, they would not, like myse^j 
now be treading the quiet walks of private hfr 

Mr. Chairman, I ask your indulgence, anf^hat 
of this committee, in some remarks upon/'.^ bill 
now under consideration. In the House b-'>"i the 
Senate bill, and in the substitute offered^ ""7 col- 



I£433 



A 



n.?. 



league, [Mr. Richardson,] there are, in my judg- 
ment, many objectionable features; but there is 
one which overshadows them all. 1 need hardly 
say, that is the clause which repeals the Missouri 
compromise-, and my objection to that clause is 
strengthened by the conviction that the repeal of 
that compromise supersedes whatever of cnmpro- 
mise there was about the legislation of IboO, which 
politicians and parties and conventions have de- 
nominated " compromise measures." The " acts" 
themselves will stand upon our statute-book, as 
does the Missouri act now, until re]ie«!ed by Con- 
gress. But, sir, it is my firm belief that the spirit 
of'kindness, of forbearance, of conciliation, of 
concession; in a word, the sjiirit of compromise 
which brought Missouri int:) ilie Uni"n, sisgijested 
and laid the foundruions for the le.'^isUuion of 
1849-'50. Instead of lieing in any way impaired 
by the measures of 1S50, the Missouri compro- 
mise was indorsed and confirmed thereby, if there 
be any binding efficacy in the acts and language 
of men, which is not secured under their hands 
and seals. 

Let me ask what caused the agitation and ex- 
citement of 1S4S, 1849, and 1850, and to what do 
the laws of 1850, which are claimed to bear upon 
the bill before us, refer? The agitation of that 
time grew out of the territory acquired by us from 
Mexico, by the treaty of peace with that country. 
It is not necessary, to my present purpose, to even 
allude to the causes of and the history of the war 
with Mexico. It is enough here to say that at its 
close an immense territory, stretching far south- 
ward on the Pacific coast, was added to the Union, 
over which the South hoped, and the North feared 
the area of slavery would be extended. When t'ie 
Thirty-First Congress assembled, California, with 
a constitution formed by her people, excluding 
Elaverj', asked admission into the Union. The 
North were in favor of her admission and of ex- 
cluding slavery from all other new territory, and 
of prohibiting the slave trade in the District of 
Columbia. The South opposed the admission of 
California, the prohibition of the slave trade in this 
District, complained that their fugitive slaves were 
not delivered up in the free States, as required by 
the Constitution, and threatened secession and dis- 
union. Texas, admitted into the Union as a slave 
State, with undefined boundaries, claimed by her 
as extending over no small portion of the territory 
c«ded by Mexico, furnished another item in the 
ingredients which at the opening of Congress, in 
December, 1849, seemed (liere at least) to threaten 
the overthrow of the Government. 

At this critical moment came forward a man in 
the United States Senate to £xert his influence in 
quieting the troubled waves of political and sec- 
tional strife. Thatman was Henry Clay, of Ken- 
tucky — I had almost said, but will not say, for 
hisnaEieand famebelongto theUiiion — and Con- 
gress and the country breathed easier underthecon- 
victiqn that the same genius, and eloquence, and 

Iiatriotism, and devotion to the great principles of 
iberty, which had commanried the admiration of 
the world, and which had again and again quieted 
the commotions of parties and of sections would, 
\, 'ith the increase of age and experience, once again 
co.'<»,'>rottiise the then existing difficulties of the 
coui't-'y- Why was it that men of all sections 
and f %rties yielded to him the high position of 
mediator at this perilous crisis.' Was it not be- 
cause it vv'tis believed that he who had been mainly | 
instrumeni.'t! in quieting the slavery excitement, I 



growing out of theacquisition of French territory, 
1 was the very man to allay a .similar excitement 
' growing out of our Mexican acquisitions. 

As c(5nnected with the difHculties of 1850, it 
seems to me that a simple reference to the facts, 
the measures, and the men, will satisfy any rei- 
sonal'le mind that the legislation of 1850, so far 
from weakening, strengthened and confirmed the 
Missouri co-npromise of 1820. ' 

It has, however, been so strenuously insisted 
that the .Missouri compromise was no compro- 
mise, and if so, was superseded by the legisla- 
tion of 1850, that no excuse need be made for ad- 
ducmg some evidence to the contrary. 

I refer fust to a speech made in tne Senate on 
the 27th May, 1850, by Mr. Maso.v, of Viriinia. 
(Vol. 22, part l.st, App., p. G50, May 27, 1850.) 

After .'^peaking of the "Clayton bill" as one 
mode of adjustment sanctioned by southern votes, 
he says: 

" Out tlipre i.-i anotlior, far beircr understood, and wliicli 
lins the sanction of an acqiiiesctnicc of tliirty yi-ar.*. Fall- 
inc buck on tlie hasf^ of comprojnise adApiiMl on tlie 
.i(liiii.«pion of IMissonri, let us talct; tliH parall*^! of ^6° 3U' as 
the line of partition in tht^ jieiy Territories, thus .-.iitreiM;; 
to divid'! and enjoy separately a coinmon property, what 
otir different institutions would s'ein to forhid tiiat we 
should enjoy in couinion. EUlier form of adjustment, [ 
have litile doubt, would be found acceptable to theSoutli." 

Again he says: 

" Cut let it not be supposed that f nin at all the eulogist 
of lh§ original MLssouri compromise." 

Here Mr. Mason admits the existence of the 
Missouri compromise; gives it the sanction of 
thirlij years acquiescence. What becomes of the 
arguments of gentlemen toshow^that there was 
no such comproiuise, and of other gentlemen to 
show that it had been repudiated.' Mr. Masom 
again speaks of the " basis of compromise," and 
says: " Let us take tlje parallel of 360 30' as the 
line of partition in the nem Territories, will any 
man say that, in /tis judgment, theorigiiial .Missouri 
coinpromise had reference to any territory except 
that acquired from France in 1803?" Why, sir, 
the letter from Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolitia, 
which has been frequently referred to, to show 
that the Missouri act was a southern triumph, 
repels the presutuption that it was intended to 
alTect any territory but that embraced in the bill: 
Congress HaI.i,, March, 2, 1820, ) 
3 o'clock at night. ] 

Dear Sir : I hasten to inform you that this moment we 
have carried the question to admit Missouri and all Louisi- 
ana to the southward of lid" 30' free of the restriction of 
slavery, and ^ve the Soidh, in n short time, an ndJition of 
six, and perhaps ei^ht, members to the Scnatf of Hie United 
States. It is considered here by the slaveholding States 
as a ({reat triumph. The voK-s were close — ninety lo eighty- 
si.\, [the vote was so first declared]— produced by the seced- 
iniE; and absence of a few modenite men from the North. 
To the north of 36° 30' there is to be, by the present law, 
restriction, which you will see by the votes I voted against. 
But it is at present of no moment. It is a vast tract, unin- 
hnhited only by savages and wild hearts, in which not a f>ot 
nf the Indian claim to soil is extinguished, aiid in whieh, 
accordini; to the ideas prevalent, no land office will be open 
for a s.reat length of time. 

With respect, your obedient servant, 

<;il.\RLES PINCKNEV. 

Mr. Pinckney, instead of looking to the exten- 
sion of territory to the Pacific, was only looking 
to the remote period when land offices were to be 
established in the Territory of Nebraska. 

Mr. Chairman, the eloquent gentleman from 
GeorJJia, in his speech of February last, with a 
great flourish of trumpets, calls up Daniel Web- 
ster, and places him upon the stand in his place 
in the Senate, on the 17th day of June, the identi- 



cal day when, upon Mr. Soule's motion, this 
anfiendinent was voted into the compromise bill: 

"Aiid vvlien llie said Teriiiory, or any portion of the 
saiiH', ;-tiall be admitted as a StaJe, it sliall he received into 
ttie Union, witli or witliout slavery, as tlieir cunslitulioii 
may prescribe at the time of admission." 

With artistic skill he pictures the scene with New 
England's renowned statesman in tlie foreground. 
Passing by all that was said by Mr. Webster on 
that occasion which had any bearing upon the 
proposition before the Senate, he recites only the 
concluding remarks of thatgreat man, which, how- 
ever eloquent they may be, certainly have little 
connection with Mr. Soule's amendment, and 
straightway the Senate, the galleries, the whole 
Capitol, and the city, were in ecstacies, and the elec- 
tric wires trembled with the gladsome nevv-s which 
was to make the nation leap v/ith joy. I read 
them: 

" Sir, my object is peace, my object is reconciliation. My 
purpose is not to mal^e up a case for the Norili. or to malie 
up a case for the South. My object is not to continue use 
less atul irritating controversies. I am against agitators 
North and South. I am against local ideas North and South, 
and against all narrow and local contests. I am an Amer- 
ican, and I know no locality in ."Vmerica. That is my 
country. My heart, my sentiments, my judgment, demand 
of me that I should pursue sucii a course as shall promote 
the good, and the harmony, and the union of the whole 
country. This I shall do, God willing, to the end of the 
chapter." 

Let me examine the gentleman's witness for a 
moment. I read from his speech on that occasion. 
In it he says he voted against the Wilmot proviso; 
has not seen much practical utility in Mr. Soule's 
amendment; but if he should vote against it, it might 
leave him open to the suspicion of wishing to see 
that accomplished in another way hereafter which 
he did not choose to see accomplished by the Wil- 
mot proviso: 

"I shall vote for it exactly on the same grounds that I 
voted againt the introduction of the proviso. And let it be 
remembered that I am now speaking of New Mexico, Utah, 
and other Territories acquired by Mexico, and of nothing 
else. I confine myself to these; and as to them, I say that 1 
see no occasion to make provision against slavery now, or to 
reserve to ourselves the right to make such provision here- 
after. All this rests on the most thorough conviction that, 
under the law of nature, there never can be slavery in these 
Territories. That is the foundation of all. And I voted 
against the proviso, and I vote now in favor of this amend- 
ment, for the reason that all restrictions are unnecessary, 
absolutely unnecessary." 

And he desired not to give offense. 

Did Mr. Webster vote for this proposition with 
the expectation that it should be used as a weapon 
to strike down the Missouri compromise ! 

Mr. Chairman, it is one of the old expedients 
of lawyers to array on their.side men of character 
atid standing as witnesses in a desperate cause. 
We have an example in point in the recent mur- 
der ca.se in Kentucky, where the able counsel for 
the defense, not content with the great men of the 
vicinage, had the attendance of gentlemen of high 
standing from this city. Tlie gentleman from 
Georgia has shown his skill in the use of this ex- 
pedient. It was adroitly managed, and if any of 
my friends ever have a desperate case in the courts 
of Georgia, I shall certainly advise them lo give 
him a " retainer." 

( need not say to yon, Mr. Chairman, that this 
little amendment of Mr. Soulc, which is found in i 
the arts organizing the Territories of Utaii and 
New Mexico, contains the great principles gravely 
set forth in the fourteenth section of the bill re- , 
ported to the House by the chairman of the Com- I 
mittee on Territories [Mr. RicHARDso>f] on the I 
31st of January last, in these words: I 



'• Except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the 
admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 
1820, which was superseded by the jninciples of the legis- 
lation of 1850, cotnmoniy called the compromise measures, 
and is hereby declared inoperative." 

Is it not remarkable that this little amendment 
of Mr. Soule, which sent such a thrill of joy 
through the Capitol, this city, and the country, 
and caused the telegraphic wires to tremble with 
ecstacy; this amendment, which contained such 
wonderful principles, was entirely forgotten at the 
last Congress, when a bill organizing the Terri- 
tory of Nebraska, containing no reference to it or 
the Missouri compromise, passed this Flouse by 
a vote of more than two to one ? 

Is it not passing strange tliat the gentleman from 
Georgia, who, as he tells us, " was there and wit- 
nessed the scene, "and heard Mr. Webster in the 
Senate on that memorable 17th June, when Mr. 
Soule's amendment was adopted, did not rise in 
his place and offer it as an amendment to that bill.-' 
Sir, the gentleman did not raise his voice against 
that bill. He did not even record hisvote against it. 
Sir, there are two words in the bills before us which 
explain all the mystery connected with the action 
of the last Congress upon this subject. Then the 
clause in the Utah and New Mexico bills was 
deemed " locally inappUcalde" to Nebraska ! 

Well, sir, on the 17th day of June, this great 
principle was adopted in the Senate; and we ought, 
perhaps, to have expected that nothing more would 
be heard of the Missouri compromise. But not 
so; on the ISth day of July, Mr. Davis, then Sen- 
ator from Mississippi, now Secretary of War, 
said: "The proposition of the Nashville conven- 
tion was to divide the Territory by the parallel of 
360 3(j';" and he spoke of it as " preferable to a 
new line, because of the prescriptive claim it has, 
and the respect it enjoys among the people as a 
measure sanctified by time, and still more by the 
blessings it brought on our country at a time of 
serious, even alarming agitation." 

And again, on the 2tl of August, Mr. Davis 
said of the same parallel: 

" I expect there are none who hear me who will deny 
that thai line will give an amount of satisfaction which no 
other line could give." 

Can it be believed that Mr. Davis considered 
the act of 1820 " inoperative and void t" 

On the same day, August 2d, Mr. Badger, of 
North Carolina, made a speech upon this subject, 
from which 1 feel warranted jn reading a pretty 
long extract, on account of his long amendment 
to the bill: 

" We just stand right here, and ask for and enforce our 
reasonable claims. What have we asked of our northern 
friends, and how have we asked it .' We have used-^-cer- 
lainly I have used — no language either of defiance or'cven 
of demand. We have been content earnestly and itHeetion- 
ately to ask— yes, to entreat, not insolently todictale or re- 
quire. We have said, do not wantonly what you know 
will be regarded amongst us as atlVontliil, unkind ; do not 
ap|ily to these Territories the Wilmot proviso. You can 
have no motive m apply it, unless it be a paltry pride which 
leads you to persevere at all hazards in what you have 
once purposed — the simple willingness to offer an affront 
because you have the power to ofler it. There is nothing 
of vitlue to he uicomplislietl /jy*i7 ; 710 result to lie produeeil — 
none in the vorld. Ours has l)een simple asking on the 
part of men who can indd out no longer, to be permitted 
to march o\it of their fortilicalions with their side arms and 
their flag flying." 

Again he says: 

" Now, sir, hiyiind the omission of a useless, and, among 
southern men, oppressive proviso, we have asked only a 
gpod and etTectual law for the surrender of fugitive slaves — 
a mi.'asure which the Constitution makes a clear and im- 
perative duty." 



If I mistake not, it was upon liie sus:H;estion of. 
this distinguisiied Senator that the word inconsist- 
ent took the place of "superseded." Now, sir, 
I can readily imasjine, as connected with the repeal 
of the Missouri comprutnise, how the word in- 
consistent was brought to his mind. It passes my 
comprehension how he came to give it the ap})li- 
cation which he did. 

As a document full of meaning, I will refer to 
the declaration and pledge of forty-four members 
of theTliirty-First Congress, in which they agreed 
not to support for office any person not opposed 
to disturbing the settlement of 1850, and " to the 
renewal, in any form, of agitation upon the sub- 
ject of slavery. 

Permit me to call the attention of the committee 
to some extracts from a speech made by Mr. 
Douglas in the Senate, December 23, 1851. In 
that he says, in substance, that he, as chairman 
of the Committee on Territories, drew and re- 
ported bills for the admission of California, for 
territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico, 
and for the settlement of the Texas boundary 
question, which were printed. These bills Mr. 
Clay wafered together and reported in his omni- 
bus bill, which he supporttd as u joint measure, 
and supported each measure separately. He adds: 

" Mr. President, I cl.Tiiii no credit lor liavine; orisjinated 
and proposed the measures coiilained in the onmihus. 
Tlicrc was no peculiar or remarkahle feature in tliein. 
They werS mere/;/ ordinary measures of legislation, well 
adapted to the cirtiniistanres, and their sole merit consisted 
in the fact tliat separately they could pass both Flou-'^es. 
Being responsible for these bills, I wish to call the ailenlion 
of the Senate and the country to tlie fact that they con- 
tained no prohibiiion of slavery, no provision upon tlie sub 
ject." 

Again, Mr. Douglas says: 

'•In faking leave of this subject, I wish to state tliat I 
have determined nei-er to make another sjieerh upon the 
slavery question ; ami I will now add the hope that the 
necessity for it will never exist." 

I apprehend, Mr. Chairman, if the honorable 
Senator had adhered to that wise determination, 
he would have saved liimself, inany here, and 
many elsewhere, the necessity of making speeches 
upon the slavery question. 1 

I now pass to a later period ; to a day when the 
great American heart wms filled with sadness by 
the death of Henry Clay, and this Hall was i 
shrouded in gloom, and eloiiuent men were here 



adjustment of 18.")0, the same pages will record the genius, 
the eloquence, and the patriotism of Hemy Clay I" 

" Nor was it in Mr. Clay's nature to lag behind until 
measures of a(lju>tment were matured, and then eome fnr- 
wani to swell a majority. On the contrary, like a bold and 
real statesman, he was ever amons the first to meet the 
peril and hazard his fame upon the remedy." 

1 wish I could stop here, but justice to the char- 
acter of that distinguished patriot, and my duty 
as regards the measure now under consideration, 
require something more at my hands. 

Mr. Chairman, when the proposition was in- 
troduced, at the other end of tlie Capitol, to repeal 
the Missouri compromise, 1 believed, and I fondly 
thought with good reason, that the sons of Ken- 
tucky on this floor, driving from " their bosoms 
by the expulsive power of noble feelings" all 
party and sectional jealousies, would stand as one 
man in support of that compromise with which 
the name of their own great statesman was so 
honorably connected. So far from doing this, 
Representatives from that State have labored hard 
to show that Mr. Clay had little to do with that 
great measure, and that of no very creditable char- 
acter. 

On the 25th of March last, the gentleman from 
whose oibituary address I have read, made a 
speech in favor of the measure before the com- 
mittee, and from that I beg leave to read a few 
extracts: 

" r liave heard gentleman here glorify Mr. Clay as the 
anilinr of the act of 18-30, prohibiting slavery north of 36' 
.'id', and invoke liis memory to resist its violation. They 
must invoke some other ' spirit' than Mr. Clay's, forlic was 
not its author." 

After quoting from, and commenting on that 
act, he atJds: 

" This was the agreement on the one hand for the benefit 
of Missouri, and, if you choose, of the South. On the other 
hand, slavery was to be prohibited north of 31;° 30', and this 
was for the benefit of the North. The terms and conditions 
on each side were clearly e.\pressed ; but with it Mr. Clay 
had nothing to do.'" 

The gentleman then refers to the Missouri act 
of 1821, and, in his comments upon it, says: 

" It is due to the memory of the illustrious aullior of this 
' fundanienial comlition' to say thai no one could be more 
sensible than himself of the intense humbuggery of the 
whole proceeding." 

So Mr. Clay had nothing to do with the act of 
1820! Tlie act of 1821 was "intense humbug- 
gery!" 

Sir, I do not propose to comment upon these 
extracts. I will not comment upon the course of 



to speak of the life, the character, and the public 

services of the illusA-ious dead. 

At an early day in this session I had the pleasure ;! ''^"■''e here or elsewhere who seek to repeal the 

to reperuse the touching and truthful tributes of i -Missouri compromise. I will not comment on 

respect paid to his memory on that mournful ; '•'^^ '^o"'^'"'^' ^'^ ''i"se who claim the bill before us 

as a measure of peace, the legitimate offspring of 
the measures of 1850. I submit whether there is 



occasion; but with none of the addiesses then 
delivered was I more forcibly impressed than with 
that by the eloquent gentleman from Kentucky, 
[Mr. Breckinridge,] already referred to by my 
friend from Tennessee, [Mr. Cullom] From 
tliis I propose to read more fully than he. I read 
from that speech as reported in the Congressional 
Globe, vol. 24, p. 1638. 

" Sir, it will be a proud pleasure to every iriic .\inerican 
heart to remember the great occasions where Mr. Clay di.s- ' 
played a sublime patriotism. When the ill temper engen- 
(lered by the times, and the miserable jealousies of the dav, 
seemed lo have been driven from his bosom by the e.\pul- i 
aive power of nobler feelings; when every throb ol his 
heart was given to his country. Who does Hot remember 
the three periods when the American system of govern- j 
ment was e.\posed to its severest trials ; and who does not 
know that when history shall relate the struggles which 
preceded, and the dangers which were averted by the Mis': 
80uri compromise, the larilT coini)romise of 1832, and the I 



not a fitting commentary upon all these in the 
gentleman's own eloquent and just remarks which 
I now read froin his obituary address :" 

" He never paltered in a double sense. The country 
never was in doubt as to his opinions or his purposes. Sir, 
standing by the grave of this great man, and considering 
' these things, how contemplihle does appear the mere leger- 
demain of jh)lilics ! IV'hal a reproach is his life on that 
fatsfi policy mhich would trifle with a great and upright peo- 
ple ! If I were to write his epitaph, I would inscribe as 
the highest i-ulogy on the stone which shall mark his rest- 
ing place, ' Here lies a man who w,is in the public service 
for fifty years, and never attempted to deceive his coun- 
irynien.' " 

Mr. Chairman, much has been said about the 
injustice of keeping Missouri out of the Union. 
My own impression, before lookingatdates, was, 
that she was kept out for a long time. But how 



5 



is this. The act of 1820 was preparatory to ad- 
mission, and under this act she came to Congress, 
with her constitution, at its next session, and in 
less than three months after her apphcation, the 
act of 1821 was passed, under which Missouri is 
now one of the sovereign States of this great 
Confederacy. Sir, the present Congress has been 
in session nearly six months, and I aslc what law 
of great benefit to the American people had been 
enacted ? The improvement of rivers and harbors 
in which Missouri herself and Illinois, and all the 
States bordering on the great rivers and lakes of 
the interior, and, I may add, the whole Union are 
so vitally concerned, is an unwritten page in the 
record of our doings. For aught that we know, 
that subject is not to have a decent burial in the 
" tomb of the Capulets." It would be some con- 
solation to its friends to know that it has not found 
its last resting place in a less imposing vault in the 
basement of the Capitol. 

But I return to the subject, and desire to call the 
attention of the committee to resolutions passed 
at the national conventions, at Baltimore, in 1852. j 
I read first from the Democratic platform: [ 

"IV. Resolved, That the f'orpgoing proposition covers, and 
was intended to embrace, tlie whole subject of slavery agi- i 
tation in Congress ; and thererore the Democratic party of 
the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by 
and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as 
the compromise measures settled hy the last Congress, 
'the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor' 
included; which act, being designed to carry out an ex- 
press provision of the Constitution, cannot with fidelity 
tliefeto be repealed or so changed as to destroy or impair its 
eflioiency. 

" V. Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all 
attempts atrenewins, in Congress or out of it, the agitation 
of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the 
attempt may be made." 

The Whig platform has this: j 

"VIII. The series of acts of the Thirty-First Congress, 
cominonly known as the compromise or adjustment, (the 
act for the recovery of fugitives from labor included,) are 
received and acquiesced in by the Whigs of the United 
States as a final settlement, in principle and substance, of 
the subjects to which they relate," &c. j 

These resolutions have frequently been referred 
to, and it has pertinently and significantly been 
asked whether the measure now before us accords 
with their letter and their spirit, /wish to in- 
quire how came these planks into their respective 
platforms.' The history of thoseconventionsshows 
that they were placed there by southern men, not 
to indorse a great principle which was to destroy 
the Missouri compromise and create agitation. 
That was not thought of; biit to indorse the fugi- 
tive slave law, and prevent agitation. Look at 
the resolutions. "The act for the recovery of 
fugitives," or "reclaiming fugitives," is specifi- 
cally mentioned, and no other. Then the word 
compromise was not so odious in certain quarters 
as now. The other acts of 1850 were coupled ; 
with the fugitive slave law, the inan tie of compro- 
mise was thrown over all, and these resolutions ' 
were commended to and received by the American ; 
people as a final quietus to slavery agitation. It 
is for the high priests of party to reconcile this 
measure of agitation, by thein brought upon the 
country, with their solemn resolves at Baltimore. I 

I pass to later events, to which I have already i 
alluded. Here in this Hall, and at yonder end of 
the Capitol, in these high places where the acts of 
1850 became laws, v/here the object and effect of 
those laws were best understood, no man had the . 
hardihood to declare, during the last session of 11 
Congress, that those acts repealed, or in anywise |j 



impaired, the Missouri compromise. On the 2d 
February, 1853, a bill was reported to this House 
; by the chairman of the Committee on Territories, 
' [Mr. Richardson,] for the organizfUion of Ne- 
braska. It contained no repeal of the Missouri 
compromise. It was here discussed, but no one 
on this floor pretended that the Missouri act was 
in any wise impaired in "principle or in subslance." 
It is true that a laugh wrs got up at the expense 
of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Giddikos,] for 
not offering the ordinance of 1787; but that "laugh- 
ter" served to show how ridiculous it would have 
been for him to propose to apply that oidinance 
to territory where it was alreat^y in full force. 

The only serious objection made to the bill was 
that it violated Indian treaties and Indian rights. 
On the 10th of February the bill passed by a vote 
of 98 to 43, northern and southern members voting 
for, and northern and southern members voting 
against its passage; and all the members froiTi Mis- 
souri advocating or voting for the bill. It went 
t to the Senate, was referred to the Committee on 
Territories, and on the 17th of February, Mr. 
; Dq^GLAs, chairman of that committee, re[)orted it 
back without arnfendment. On the 2a March, 1853, 
Mr. Douglas moved to take it up. Mr. Rusk ob- 
jected, "That bill will lead to debate." Mr. 
Douglas replied "Not at all; there is only one 
isolated point which will lead to debate." 

That point, as is evident from discussion, had on 
that day and the 3d day of Maixh, was that the 
bill interfered with Indian rights. That objection 
was then, as recently, urged by Messrs. Bell 
and Houston, and other Senators. 

On the 3d day of March, Mr. Dwuglas again 
moved to take up the Nebraska bill. It was again 
discussed, but not a v/hisper was uttered about 
the validity of the Missouri compromise. On the 
contrary, Mr. Atchison, of Missouri, said — 

" I have always been of opinion that the first great error 
committed in the political history of this country was the 
ordinance of 1787, rendering the Northwest Territory free 
territory. The ne.xt great error was tlie Missouri compro- 
mise, ijut they are bo^i irremediable. Thert is no remedy 
for them. We must submit to tlii-ni. I am prepared to do 
it. It is evident that the Missouri compromise cannot be 
repealed. So far as that question is concerned, we might 
as well agree to the admission of this Territory now as next 
year, or live or ten years hence." — Con<;ressional Globe, 
second session, 3^d Cong., vol. 26,yagf, 111.3. 

— and urged the passage of the bill. In the last mo- 
ments of the session of that day, in the very hour, 
perhaps, which divided the xldministratioii of Mil- 
lard Fillmore from the Administration of Franklin 
Pierce, Mr. Douglas again urged the passage of 
the bill in these words: 

" My anxiety for the passage of the hill induces ino to 
yield the advantage of explaining its provisions, with the 
iiope that we might get an immediate vote upon llie subject. 
It is an act that is very near my heart," 4't. 

Mr. Chairman, 

" On what aslender thread hang everlasting things I" 
Had there on that night been a quorum in the Sen- 
ate, had the Senate then passed that bill, the coun- 
try would have been saved an excitement upon 
the subject of slavery, the end of which is beyond 
human foresight. Congress would liow be legis- 
lating upon questions aflecting the best interests 
of the Union, and the entire Union. You, (Mr." 
Olds in the chair,) and I, sir, might have been 
deliberating how best to improve the navigation 
of our own noble rivers; how to connect, by rail- 
road, the valley of the Mississippi with the coast 
of the Pacific and the commerce of the Indies. 

I come down to the present Congress. At an 



6 



early day in this session, an lionoraltle Representa- 
tive of Missouri, [Mr. Miller,] who, but a day or 
two since, willi new-born zeal, so aliiy advocated 
the bill before us, introduced into this House a 
bill organizing theTerritory of Nebraska, contain- 
ing not one word repealing tlie Missouri compro- 
mise. At the other end of the Capitol a bill was, 
on the 4th of January, introduced by Mr. Doug- 
las, not tor two Tcsritories, but one, Nebraska, 
accompanied by a report, from which I read an 
extract: 

"Your cnniinittre do not feel tliemsplves called upon to 
enter i;ito the discussion of these conlrovwrted queslion?. 
Tlwy involve tlie sjinie grave issues wliicli prociuced llie 
aaitalion, lUe sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 
1650, 

" Consress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from 
dscidins the niHlters in controversy then, either hy affirming 
or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act deeiaratory of 
tlie true intent of ilie Constitution and the extent of the 
protection afTorderi by it to slave property in the Territories; 
so your comniittee are not prepared now to reconnnend a 
depariurf from the course pursued on that memorable occa- 
sion, tillier by atiirniiuf; or repealing the eighth section of 
the .Mi'^souii act, or by any ait declaratory of the meaning 
of the Constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute." 

Up to the 4th day of January, then, the Missouri 
compromise was safe. It was not necessary to 
disturb it either by " afHrming or repealing." Sir, 
a change came over the spirit of men's dreams. 
Suddenly, and without preparation, a revelation, 
more marvelous, more astounding, than any ever 
delivered by the Mormon prophet to his credulous 
followers, was proclaimed at the other etid of this 
Capitol. "Wonderful to relate," the Missouri 
compromise w;is dead ! V/iihout a groan, with- 
out a gasp, without the notice of its friends, with- 
out the knoJ^ledge of its enemies, it had expired 
amid the tumultuous scenes of 1850; and to con- 
vince the world of its death at that particular time, 
evidence was produced to prove that it was mur- 
dered in 1821, butciiered in 1836, and " kilt in- 
tirely"on several subsequent occasions! More 
wonderful still, out of the ashes of that com- 
promise had sprung a young phoenix, which had 
sung and. would sing the " lullaby" to slavery ex- 
citement until the end of time. 

The amendm.ent of Mr. Soule to the territorial 
bills of Utah and New Mexico, adopted in the 
Senate June 17, 1850, which Mr. Webster de- 
clared was to applj' to " New Mexico and Utah 
and other territory acquired from Mexico, and 
ncthing else," and which as to them, in his judg- 
ment, meant nothing, v/hich no Senator, Repre- 
sentative, lawyer, or politician had ever claimed 
as having any bearing upon the Missouri compro- 
mise, was all at once discovered to contain a prin- 
ciple which had superseded that compromise, to 
wit: the right of self-government. 1 have yet to 
learn that any one on this floor denies tl.e cor- 
rectness of a jirinciple which lies at the foundation 
of our free institutions. I take it that the repre- 
sentatives of the people of the thirty-one States of 
this Union are here this day in the exercise of 
this very princijde. I take it, sir, that if, in our 
judgment, the interests and prosjjerity of the 
country require that slavery, with its evils, shall 
be excluded from territories which are the com- 
mon property of all, wo may so exclude it, in 
the full and legitimate exerci.se of this very prin- 
ciple, just as we might proliiliit the charter of 
banks, or of lotteries, or of gambling tables, or 
whatever else may be deemed injurious to the 
prosperity of those territories.* 

* June 3, 1850. Mr. Dodolas said in the Senate: 

" But, sir, I do not hold the doctrine that to exclude 



It is not the correctness of the principle which 
is in dispute. The question is, rather, what has 
it to do with the measure now before us? What 
are its bearings upon past legislation upon the 
subject of slavery, and what are to be its efftcts 
upon the future? These are points upon wliich 
the advocates of the repeal of the Missouri com- 
promise dilTer as widely among themselves as 
they do with those who oppose it. 

Why, sir, even the author of the bill, the hon- 
orable Senator who claims the credit of discover- 
ing this sovereign panacea for allaying slavery 
excitement, cannot agree with himself upon the 
effects of his all-healing principle. 

In his speech of the 30th January, Mr. Doug- 
las says: 

'■ I sustained the Missouri compromise .so lone as it was 
in force, and advocated its extensinn to the Pacific. Now, 
when that has lieen abandoned, when it has been super- 
seded, when a great principle of self griveriimenl has been 
substituted for it, I choose to cling to that principle, and 
abide in good faith, not only by the letter, but by liiu spirit 
of the last eotnproniise." 

By the 2d of March, when he made his second 
speech, he had discovered that this great princi- 
ple, which, after lying dormant for more than three 
years, on tlie 30th of^ January possessed such im- 
1 mense eflrcacy, had, after all, in no wise lepealed 
i the Missouri compromise. By some means the 
! terms " incon.sistent with," and " inoperative and 
'void," had superseded the word "superseded," 
j and it was found that, instead of the principle 
j (though grown to be a " great fundamental prin- 
jjlel") having repealed the Missouri compromise, 
I it was necessary to repeal that compromise in 
order to give effect to the principle. I read from 
the speech of March 2: 

I " In order to carry this principle into practical operation, 
j it becomes necessary to remove whatever legal obstacles 
I might be found in the way of its free exercise. It is only 
[ for the purpose of carrying nut this fundamental principle 
1 of self aoveinment that the bill renders the eighth section 
of the Missouri act inoperative and void." 

I Oh, yes; it was merely "necessary" to remove 
i that legal obstacle, of which the honorable Sena- 
' tor had said at Springfield in October, 1849, aa 
( already quoted by my eloquent colleague [Mr. 
Yates:] 

" That it had its origin in the hearts of all patriotic men 
who desired to preserve and perpetuate tlie blessings of our 
glorious Union — an origin akin to that of tlie (Constitution 
of the United States, conceivid in the same spirit of frater- 
nal afleclion, -and calculated to remove forever the only 
dang<'r which seemed to threaten, at some distant day, 
to sever the social bond of union- All the evidences of 
public opinion at that day seemed to indicate that this com- 
promise had become canonized in the hearts of the .'Vnieri- 
can people as a sacred thing, which no ruthless hand 
would ever be reckless enough to disturb." 

The objects are various; but what is the pre- 
tense tor the measure proposed? It is made most 
lirominent in every speech in its favor on this 
floor, and is repeated and reiterated in every news- 
paper which advocates it through the land. Its 
professed object is to carry out a great principle of 

any species of property by law from any Territory is a vio- 
lation of any right to property. Do you not exelmte bank.s 
IVom most of the Territories? Do you not exclude whisky 
from being introduced into large portions ol tin- territory 
iif the United States.' Do you not exclude gainl)liiig tableg 
which are properly recognized as such in the Stales where 
they are tolerated? And has any one contended that the 
exclusion of gambling tables and of ardent spirits was the 
violation of any constitutional privilege or rigii! ? And yet 
it is the ease in a large portion of the Territory of the 
United Stales ; but then — no outcry against that, because 
it is tlie prohibition of a specitickind of property, and not 
a prohibition against any tiection of tlie Union." 



liberty, and to give peace to the country upon the 
subject of slavery. 

Sir, the Roman conspirators who struck dovt'n 
and batlied their arms up to the elbows in the 
blood of Cresar, went forth to the market place 
with the cry of " Peace ! Freedom ! and Liberty!" 
Did they bring peace upon their country? No, 
sir. War, cruel and unnatural vi^ar, in which 
Roman blood, shed by Roman hands, flowed like 
water. Did they achieve freedom? No, sir; the 
humiliating domination of petty tyrants, and they 
the conspirators, found early and bloody graves. 
Brutus " the noblest Roman of them all," with 
the name of his murdered friend upon his li[)s, 
threv/ himself upon his own sword at Piiilippi. 

It is vain for gentlemen to cry Peace ! Peace! 
while advocating and forcing upon us a measure 
more than any other calculated to arouse the storms 
of discord. It is worse than vain for them to in- 
voke the genius of liberty, while by their own act, 
they throw open to slavery a land long since con- 
secrated to freedom ! It is an insult to the intelli- 
gence of the American people to say that you 
establish the principle of popular sovereignty in 
these Territories, when by the bill before us you 
give to one man the power to appoint Governors 
and judges, and other officers, to execute and ex- 
pound, and administer their laws — a power in the 
hands of the President almost as arbitrary as that 
exercised by the King of Great Britain over his 
Colonies. 

But, sir, much has been said about honor and 
plighted faith, as connected with the Missouri 
compromise. It has been repeatedly shown, that 
a few northern men, who, so far from represent- 
ing the views of the free States, acted in open 
violation of the wishes of their own constituents, 
united with the South and passed the act of 1820; 
and the same may be said of the act of 1821. 

Suppose, sir, that, in some fearful emergency, 
the gentleman from N* w York, who sits next me, 
[iVIr. Havek,] saves my life at the hazard of his 
own; another emergency arises in which his life 
is in peril, and it is in my power to save, would 
I be exl^used from doing it, even if abused and 
insulted by every other citizen of Buffalo? Sir, 
if I have any just conception of the high and en- 
nobling sentiments of gratitude and of lionor, they 
would impel me, in defense of the life of my 
former preserver, to throw myself upon the horns 
and before the feel of the most terrific herd of 
buffaloes that ever rushed in mad career over the 
plains of Nebraska. Nay, more, sir; if the oc- 
casion did not offer in my lifetime to pay that 
debt, I would enjoin it as a sacred trust upon my 
legal representatives to discharge the same, with 
interest, whenever and wherever presented by 
him, his heirs, or executors. 

if those few men of the North who united with 
the men of the South in making the Missouri 
compromise could be called from the spirit world 
and heard on this floor, I apprehend they would 
raise a voice of remonstrance against this measure 
which would reach the southern heart. Might 
they not properly say: " Men of the South, i«e are 
they who made this compromise with your illus- 
trious sires; at a fearful crisis in the aflairs of 
the Republic, they and we made a sacrifice of our 
sectional interests and sectional feelings upon the 
altar of our common country. We made between 
the North and the South what we believed a just 
and equitable partition of the common territory of 
the nation, and upon it, in the spirit of amity 



and concord, we crossed bur right hands. It is 
true, we were censured, villified, persecuted by 
our constituents for the act, but ve never wa- 
vered. We ever kept our ' plighted faith.' Your 
sires ever maintained theirs. Men of the South, 
the sacred agreement which we made with your 
fathers is about to be trodden in the dust. You 
can avert this calamity. Do it, and show your- 
selves their worthy successors; do it, and preserve 
tlieir honor and your own honor untarnished." 

Mr. Chairman, the North has ever dealt justly, 
generously by the South. Of the Territories 
added to the Union after its formation, the South 
has more than her proportion. It was a north- 
ern man who named George Washington Com- 
mander-in-Chief of the Army of the Revolution, 
and from that day to this the North has conceded 
[ to the South a inore than equal portion of the 
places of honor, and profit, and responsibility, 
within the gift of the people and the Government. 
This was clearly and forcibly shown by my col- 
league, [Mr. BissELL,] in a speech made on this 
floor in February, 18.50 — a speech, I may add, by 
which that distinguished gentleman gained a char- 
acter for bold and manly eloquence " not less re- 
nowned " than that for valor before achieved on the 
battle-fields of Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I regret 
that he is not now among us to aid in our deliber- 
ations. I regret more the illness which keeps him 
from his seat, and in this feeling this House and 
the country will most cordially unite with me. 

Slavery is an evil; it is adrnittei! to be so. The 
few who deny this cannot affect the sentiment of 
the many who declare slavery to be the dark st^in 
upon the bright escutcheon of our country. Sit 
down with 'some patriotic Englishman, and dis- 
cuss with him the merits of his Government and 
your own. On many things which constitute the 
fame, the wealth, and the greatness of both coun- 
tries, each will be well satisfied with his own po- 
sition; but you will be apt to remind him that in 
two memorable eras of your common history 
Young America triumphed over Old England on 
the ocean and the land. Regarding this as rather 
oflfensive, he will be pretty sure to retort, " With 
all your boasted freedom, you have slavery in its 
worst form." 
" Slaves cannot breathe in England. If their lungs 
Rnceive our air, that moment they are free ; 
They touch our country, and their shackles fall." 

And what is your reply to this? It is found as 
the climax of the wrongs inflicted upon the Colonies 
by the King of Great Britain, which Jefferson 
placed in the draft of the Declaration of our Inde- 
pendence: 

" He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, 
violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the 
persons of a distant people who never oflended him, 
capturing and carrying them into slavery in another hemis- 
phere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation 
thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of intidel 
power, is the warfare of the Christain KingofGrent Britain. 
Determined to keep open a market where men should be 
bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppress- 
ing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this 
execrable commerce." 

If this bill should pass — if slate States should be 
formed out of these Territories — may it not happen 
that citizens of those States, seeing and feeling the 
inconsistency and evils of slavery, will throw upon 
this Congress the blame for its existence there? 
Others must and will act as they please upon this 
subject. As for me, when my brief career shall 
be run, when my name shall be forgotten, no citi- 
zen or Representative from any of those States 



8 



shall find among the musty records of this day's 
doings my name in the list of those sanctioning 
this measure. Mr. Chairman, I stand where Mr. 
Clay stood, when in his place in the Senate, in 
February, 1850, he said: 

" I never can, ai)d never will, and no earthly power will 
make me, vote to spread slavery over territory where it 
does not exist." 

What matters it, if standing with some friend 
upon the fearful brink of the cataract of Niagara, 
he, by some false step, loses iiis balance and seizes 
my hand to save him from destruction; what mat- 
ters it, I ask, wliether, at that perilous moment, I 
wrench from him the hand which is able save, or 
while he stands in safety by my side, gazing upon 
the sublimity of the scene, with that same hand 



I thrust him down the fatal abyss.' Sir, in the 
forum of conscience, in the eye of man and of God, 
I am as guilty of the blood of my fellow-man in 
the one case as the other. Gentlemen on thia 
floor say — the bill itself says— you are not legis- 



■'librpRV of congress 



laiing slavery into these Ten 
by th' 
mei( 
quiet 
and . 
1 r 
no ea 
direcl\ 
doe- 1 
seat i 




0011 897 833 ft 



Oh, no; 

e, you are 
vevy may 
f Kansas 

vili, and 

(ly or in- 

f vhere it 

-jlds her 



..I — never, while my heart sends 
the vital fluid through my veins — never! 




The above shows at a glance the comparative 
extent of the free and slave territory of the 
United States; the part in v/hite representing the 
free, and that in black the slave States. In the 
shaded portions are presented the immense regions 
of Nebraska and Kansas. 

In so small a map ij is impossible to present 
exact boundaries. It is proper to add, that by 
the acts of 1R50 there was left in Te.xas, north of 
36° 30', a strip of territory one and a half degrees 
of latitude in width, and three degrees of longi- 
tude in leiigih; nearly three times as large as Mas- 
sachusetts. Two tuiids of this in, 'ly thei%.t:;ent. 
bill, thrown into Kansas. This is not seen in the 
map. 

The following extracts from the acts of Con- 
gress are given to show that the " compromise 
measures" of 1850 recognized the Missouri com- 
promise: 

MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 
"'The eifhtli section of an act, entitled ' An act to au- 
thorize the people ol' Missouri Territory to form a consti- 
tution and Slate goveftiment, and for the admission of^aid 
Slate into the Udion on equal footing with the orisinal 
Stale!), and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories,' ap- 
proved March 5th, 1820, contains the following enactment : 
'Provided, 'I'hat in all that Territory ceded by France to 
the United Slates, under the name of Louisiana, which lies 
north of 36" HO' north latitude, notincluded within the limits 
of the Stale contemplated by this act, slavery and involun- 
tary servuude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, 
whereof the parties shall be duly convicted, be and is hereby, 



I forever prohibited : Provided alwnyn, That any person es- 
caping into the same trom whom labor or service is law- 
] fully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, 
I such fugitive nia\ i)e lawfully claimed and conveyed to the 
person claimii g his or her laborer service, as aforesaid.' " 

ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 

" The third artirte otihe. second section of the 'joint res- 
olutions for annexing Texas to the United States,' approved 
March 1, 1845, among other things, provides, that' New 
Slates, of convenient size, not exceeding four in nun)ber, 
in addition to the State of Texas, and having sufficient pop- 
ulation, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be 
fornicd out ot' the territory thereof, which shall be entiled 
to admission under the provisions of the Feiieral Uonstilu- 
tioN, .'\nd such States as m:iy be formed out of that portion 
of said tcrru.iry lying soui^h of 30^ ;)0 notlii laiituti' , com- 
monly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be 
admitted into the Uni<m, with or without slavery, as the 
people of each State asking admission may desire. And in 
such Stale or States as shall be formed out of said territory 
north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or invol- 
untary servitude, (f xcept for crime,) shall be prohibited.' " 
COMrROMISE OF 1850. 

" The fifth proposition of an act entitled 'An act propos- 
ing tt the Slate oi" Texas the establishment of her north- 
ern and western boundaries, the relinquishment by the 
said Slate of all territory claimed by her exterior to said 
boundaries, and of all her claims upon the United States, 
and to establish a territorial government for New Mexico,' 
approved September 9, 1850, among other things, provides 
as follows : 'Provided, Thai nothing herein contained shall 
be construed to impair or quality anything coruained in 
thcfhird article of section second ol* joint resolutions for an- 
nexing Texas to the United Stales,' approved March 1, 
1845, either as regards the number of States that may here- 
after be formed out of the Stale of Texas, or otherwise." 



Frinted at the Congreisional Globe Office. 



«• 



l/'',r?,C:'°'^^°^QRKs 



°°'' 897 833 A 



HOT I IMHPR 



